Offshore Patrol Cutter–Why? The Short Answer

Posted on by
2

Yesterday I outlined some basic questions that have to be answered to justify the OPC program. I’m sure there questions have already been answered in one form or another, but we need to make sure the answers are widely understood and we need to apply whatever influence we may have to help the program along.

We have already gotten some good answers in the comment section, and I’m going to make my own stab at it. I’ll answer each of my questions in detail later, I’m still polishing them, but first, I’d like to provide basic justification for our large cutters.

Why do we need them?

The US EEZ is roughly 3.7 million square nautical miles, about 30% more than the entire land area of the United States. The Coast Guard is the “Department of Emergency Services” for the entire area–fire, flooding, medical, and the only law. Only a small portion of the area can be serviced by patrol boats, so perhaps 3 million square nautical miles must be patrolled by larger cutters. A fleet of approximately 40 cutters can keep no more than about 20 on patrol at any one time, so each  cutter is patrols an average of about 150,000 square nautical miles. On average they would be 1,000 miles apart. Because we don’t distribute the ships evenly, in fact, many times they are closer together in areas of interest, but in other areas the separation is even greater.

If we decide not to build these ships, or some sort of large cutter, we will see a rapid decline in our patrol forces beginning in 2020 running down to a force of only the National Security Cutters with typically no more than four cutters on patrol to cover the entire area.

American citizens are on those waters and they deserve and rightfully expect a minimum level of protection.

The nation and the international community take many of the things we do for granted, but like in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” consider what that area would be like if there were no large cutters. Some of the things that don’t happen because cutters have been there:

  • Fleets of foreign fishing vessels don’t deplete our fishing stocks
  • Pirates don’t terrorize fishermen and pleasure boaters
  • Fisherman don’t die of treatable injuries
  • Ships don’t pollute indiscriminately

(Somehow the conspiracy theorist in me suspects that the movement to end the OPC program is a result of elements profiting from the NSC, wanting to make sure the NSC program is not truncated in favor of more much cheaper OPCs. If successful, we might even see a continuation of the NSC program.)

Offshore Patrol Cutters–Why?

Posted on by
11

OPC Conceptual Rendering

Yesterday a report surfaced that OMB was recommending eliminating the Offshore Patrol Cutter Program. I don’t know how serious this threat is to the program. It might just be one of hundreds of line items that might be considered as ways to trim the budget. An OMB recommendation doesn’t necessarily reflect the intent of the President or the department. Certainly the Congress will also have something to say about it.

On the other hand, we know there will be serious attempts to reduce the budget shortfalls, so we can expect any high profile program to get looked at seriously. Within the Coast Guard, it doesn’t get any more high a profile than the OPC program.  This is potentially the most expensive ship building program in our history.

We should expect a fight over this program. There are going to be many questions. Hopefully we will have the answers ready, because if this program is canceled, the character of the service will be changed radically, and the country will loose a vital capability.

  • Why do we need them?
  • What missions will not get done if the program is canceled?
  • What can they do that you can’t do with the 154 ft Hero class fast response cutters (FRC)?
  • Are those tasks worth doing?
  • Why don’t we let the Navy provide the ships, and “You can just put a detachment on board to do law enforcement missions.”
  • and our Senators and Representatives will ask, “What’s in it for my constituents?”

Even if the program is not canceled outright there will be questions about the choices made:

  • Why do they need to be so big and complicated?
  • Aren’t the current ships doing the job? Why can’s you build a simpler ship like the 210?
  • Do you really need that many?
  • Why don’t buy Littoral Combat Ships and get economies of scale?

China Building Six Major Cutters a Year–How many are Enough?

Posted on by
2

China Defense Blog is reporting “In order to improve the capacity of marine law enforcement and safeguard marine rights, China plans to build 30 vessels for marine law enforcement in the next five years.” The source is here, but the blog has pictures, as well the complete text, while the source has none.

I found this quotation puzzling:

“China has a vast area of seas, but the number and the tonnage of vessels for marine law enforcement are both small. China’s fleet does not meet the standard of one vessel per 1,000 square kilometers (emphasis applied) and there is a huge gap compared to other developed countries, said Li Lixin, director of South China Sea Branch of State Oceanic Administration of China, on Monday.”

For comparison, from Wikipedia:

The US has the largest EEZ in the world: 11,351,000 sq km

Japan EEZ: 4,479,358 sq km

China’s EEZ is much smaller, 877,019 sq km. Even adding the EEZ of Taiwan and other areas claimed by China, but disputed by others (3,000,000 sq km) the total is 3,877,019 sq km.

Applying a one patrol vessel to 1,000 sq km would mean the USCG should have 11,351 cutters. In fact we have 43 patrol cutters over 1000 tons or about 1 per 264,000 sq km. If the Chinese had a ship to patrol area ratio like ours, they would only need three or four ships. Clearly there is a disconnect here.

We talked a bit about a comparison of the Japanese Coast Guard and their Chinese counterparts here, and it is clearly the Japanese they are comparing themselves to.  There is a pretty good article on the various agencies the Chinese use to do maritime law enforcement missions here.

The other nations with the largest EEZs are Australia, France, Russia. Japan, with the 9th largest EEZ, has the largest fleet of cruising cutters in the world. China’s EEZ is 32nd in size.

Still I think the Chinese may be on to something in terms of justifying their fleet. Maybe we ought to do some sort of resource to area of responsibility comparison. We know that our EEZs in the Southwest Pacific and Arctic are under served.

WLR, WLI, WLIC, WTGB, WYTL

Posted on by
5

There is a bit of news on some of our smaller vessels.

The November 2008 issue of the Acquisition directorate’s newsletter included some information about planning for the replacement of the WLR/WLIC inland buoy tenders.

“We are in the process of updating propulsion, generators, steering systems, and fire suppression on our WLIC fleet, with similar updates for the WLRs in the future. For the long term, we have been appropriated funds by Congress in the fiscal year 2009 budget to initiate a WLR/WLIC replacement project, which we’re calling the “Heartland Waterway Vessel (HWV) Project”.  The sponsor in CG-7 and the ATON Program Manager in CG-5 are jointly developing the requirements for the HWV.  The final form of the HWV depends upon completion of the requirements development process and an alternative analysis, but the HWV may very well take the form of a WLR-like tug and barge but with enhanced C4I capabilities plus a high-speed, multi-mission cutter boat.  The good news is this effort has the necessary highest-level support and momentum for the first time in recent history.”

I did a little follow-up, and with the help of MCPO Brett F. Ayer, who is master chief for the Acquisitions Directorate, I contacted Ms. Maureen Schumann,Director of Communications, Assistant Commandant for Acquisition (CG-9), and she was good enough to answer some questions:

Q: …was wondering about the current status of the WLR/WLIC refurbishment and replacement program. Could you provide an update that I can share with our readers?

A: In FY09, we were appropriated funds to begin the Inland Rivertender Recapitalization Project (former Heartland Waterway Vessel Project). Since that time, we have completed the necessary mission analysis reports and drafted the mission needs statements.

Q: Is there a plan for replacement of the 65 ft WYTL harbor tugs? Are they part of the HWV program?

A: There are currently no plans to replace the 65′ WYTL harbor Tugs and they are not part of the WLIC-WLR Recapitalization Program.

Q: Have we begun planning replacements for the 140 ft WTGBs? (I know they are newer than a lot of our vessels but they are hitting the 30 year mark.)

A: There are currently no plans to replace the 140′ WTGBs. However, we are in the process of standing up a 10-year Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for this fleet. The 140'WTGB SLEP is tentatively set to begin in late 2013.

Strategic Communications?–Coast Guard Can Do

Posted on by
5

Strategic Communications? Its a new label for me (sounds a lot like common sense–writing with a purpose–in a new wrapper), but some people in the Coast Guard are apparently we are already doing it.

Another blogger gives props to the First District PIO, ESCANABA (WMEC-907), Cdr. Westfall and his crew and a backhanded slap to the Navy for doing it wrong.